Left Behind a superstition? Armageddon a myth?

[Rhamiel]

Darth

That's not what Rham is saying, God's not going to rapture anybody because that's not what the text says is going to happen. In addition to that, the prevailing pattern in the biblical narrative is that God walks with his people through tribulation, he doesn't exempt them from it.

this

 

[SarahsKnight]

Here are two of the more logical arguments I have thought of, one for each side. Begging-the-question kind of thoughts.


For the preterists, if Revelation was indeed fulfilled in AD 70 (correct me if I have misunderstood this), then why was it written after the fact? To my understanding so far, the book of Revelation was written in AD 95 ....? I mean, if that is so, what was the point of it being written?


And for the Rapture and Tribulation believers, I have often wondered this: If you believe this and also hold to the traditional view of an upwards Heaven that believing souls go to right after earthly death, then does it not seem weird to go to be with Jesus at the Rapture to escape the Tribulation period, THEN come back to Earth afterward to reign with Him for the 1000 years, THEN have that final Armageddon battle happen where Satan's army is instantly defeated by consuming fire and everyone who ever lived are now judged to go to Heaven or Hell as the lake of fire? So you just end up in upwards Heaven again after you've already been there during the Tribulation time? Why would you ever want to go back to Earth after the first Heaven visit, even for the millennial reign? Now I may have your view here a little wrong in the exact order of events and other details, but it's basically what I remember just sort of being taught, actively or passively, as the mainstream idea all my life.

 

[Rhamiel]

Here are two of the more logical arguments I have thought of, one for each side. Begging-the-question kind of thoughts.


For the preterists, if Revelation was indeed fulfilled in AD 70 (correct me if I have misunderstood this), then why was it written after the fact? To my understanding so far, the book of Revelation was written in AD 95 ....? I mean, if that is so, what was the point of it being written?


And for the Rapture and Tribulation believers, I have often wondered this: If you believe this and also hold to the traditional view of an upwards Heaven that believing souls go to right after earthly death, then does it not seem weird to go to be with Jesus at the Rapture to escape the Tribulation period, THEN come back to Earth afterward to reign with Him for the 1000 years, THEN have that final Armageddon battle happen where Satan's army is instantly defeated by consuming fire and everyone who ever lived are now judged to go to Heaven or Hell as the lake of fire? So you just end up in upwards Heaven again after you've already been there during the Tribulation time? Why would you ever want to go back to Earth after the first Heaven visit, even for the millennial reign? Now I may have your view here a little wrong in the exact order of events and other details, but it's basically what I remember just sort of being taught, actively or passively, as the mainstream idea all my life.

there are other views besides those two

I would recommend this book
it has a lot of personal opinion mixed in with sound doctrine, but the author does a good job distinguishing between the two, it was written in 1880's so some of it is a bit dated, but it is good
The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of Future Life by Charles Arminjon ? Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

 

[Saucy]

Except the bible DOES say it's going to happen. Whether it's pre, mid or post trib, we can all agree to disagree. But a rapture (or, being caught up to meet Him in the clouds) will happen.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Except the bible DOES say it's going to happen. Whether it's pre, mid or post trib, we can all agree to disagree. But a rapture (or, being caught up to meet Him in the clouds) will happen.

The tribulation isn't going to happen either, Revelation isn't a prophesy about what is going to happen, it's a message of hope to those being persecuted. It's saying that "It looks like evil and chaos is the ruler of this world, but it's not. God is." Jesus will come back, final judgment, restoration of all things. The end. That's what scripture is about.
I'll be the first person to tell you God didn't stop revealing things to people when he wrote scripture, but the theology is left-behind seems to go against the very nature of the kingdom of God. It promotes violence, fear as the primary reason for conversion, escapism, and most importantly it reduces the gospel to merely a ticket to Heaven.

 

[Saucy]

Well i think you're wrong. It's written like a prophecy of events to happen well after the invasion. It wouldn't go into detail about all the individual judgements to come and have vision of Heaven, etc. It totally reads like any other prophetic book.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Well i think you're wrong. It's written like a prophecy of events to happen well after the invasion. It wouldn't go into detail about all the individual judgements to come and have vision of Heaven, etc. It totally reads like any other prophetic book.

You're entitled to that opinion, but unfortunately that would be a mishandling of the text.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Saucy]

No it's not. It's a literal interpretation. Read chapter one carefully.

"The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what MUST SOON take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near."

So that's literally how the book starts out. It says specifically it's a record of things SOON TO HAPPEN and calls itself WORDS OF PROPHECY. So you tell me how it's mishandling the text when I'm taking it at its word?

 

[Lord Of The Forest]

Saucy, with all due respect, a literal reading of apocalyptic literature is automatically mishandling it. Apocalyptic literature is highly symbolic, poetic, and metaphoric, and was meant to be read and interpreted as such.

The preterist would agree that the events (or most of them) in John's vision would occur soon; in the Olivet discourse, Jesus himself said his generation would not pass before his prophecy was fulfilled.

 

[radhead]

The best parts of the Bible were a result of God's general revelation. The rest of it was made up speculation, stories, and fables. So I don't think any Bible writer predicted the future supernaturally.

 

[Saucy]

It's an introduction by John in the text. How is saying something is SOON TO HAPPEN (granted they thought Christ's coming was very soon) and WORDS OF PROPHECY about something that already happened or won't happen mishandling it?

When John wrote it, he was writing about something that hasn't happened yet and something he fully expected to happen.

I guess being a conservative, American, non-denominational Christian I just don't have the same reasoning powers the rest of you do to make the text not say something it actually says.

 

[DaedraSun]

I cannot give my thoughts on Revelation, or at least parts of it, without the forum exploding multiple times, someone pulling out a stake to burn me, cries of heresy, gnashing of teeth and accusations of all kinds of stuff.

LOL...so I wont - until I feel more brave. Not today.

 

[Lord Of The Forest]

It's an introduction by John in the text. How is saying something is SOON TO HAPPEN (granted they thought Christ's coming was very soon) and WORDS OF PROPHECY about something that already happened or won't happen mishandling it?

When John wrote it, he was writing about something that hasn't happened yet and something he fully expected to happen.

Obviously the prologue is straightforward, but that's before the swirling maelstrom of metaphor starts.

See the second paragraph in my post-- I address the imminent qualities of the Apocalypse. I stuck it on as an edit, so you may have missed it. Since it's on the previous page, I've copied it here for your convenience.

The preterist would agree that the events (or most of them) in John's vision would occur soon; in the Olivet discourse, Jesus himself said his generation would not pass before his prophecy was fulfilled.

I cannot give my thoughts on Revelation, or at least parts of it, without the forum exploding multiple times, someone pulling out a stake to burn me, cries of heresy, gnashing of teeth and accusations of all kinds of stuff.

 

[Saucy]

Jesus wasn't talking about HIS generation. He was speaking of end time events and Israel becoming a nation. So I've always taken it to mean that the generation that sees Israel return as a nation (1948) won't pass away until He returns."

 

[Rhamiel]

It's an introduction by John in the text. How is saying something is SOON TO HAPPEN (granted they thought Christ's coming was very soon) and WORDS OF PROPHECY about something that already happened or won't happen mishandling it?

When John wrote it, he was writing about something that hasn't happened yet and something he fully expected to happen.

I guess being a conservative, American, non-denominational Christian I just don't have the same reasoning powers the rest of you do to make the text not say something it actually says.

I agree with you about Revelation being about the end of the world, and the stuff that happens before the end of the world
some of that stuff happened with the destruction of Jerusalem
some of that stuff has been going on again and again since then
some of it will not happen until very close until the end

 

[Rhamiel]

Jesus wasn't talking about HIS generation. He was speaking of end time events and Israel becoming a nation. So I've always taken it to mean that the generation that sees Israel return as a nation (1948) won't pass away until He returns."

you think that the modern secular nation state of Israel is in any way connected with end times events?
huh

 

[Lord Of The Forest]

The preterist would agree that the events (or most of them) in John's vision would occur soon; in the Olivet discourse, Jesus himself said his generation would not pass before his prophecy was fulfilled.

Was he? Dispensationalism would say yes. However, the saying causes no problem from preterist standpoint; Olivet discourse foretelling a great and impending doom, John's many references to living in the last hour, and finally culminating in the Revelation.

 

[Saucy]

I'm sorry for my tone. I guess I'm just frustrated with the attitude I get sometimes that being a conservative Christians means I don't know what I'm talking about. You must be liberal or become a Christian outside of America to really find the truth.

 

[Saucy]

you think that the modern secular nation state of Israel is in any way connected with end times events?
huh

Well the Jews are back in Israel and returning from the North, South, East and West just as prophesied. Israel hasn't been a nation or nationally recognized until 1948. It was fought over and occupied, but never a nation. The Jews are thinking of going back to their forefathers and even planning on building the third temple, also prophesied. So yes, it does seem to me it's happened as described in the different prophetic books.

 

[Lord Of The Forest]

I agree with you about Revelation being about the end of the world, and the stuff that happens before the end of the world
some of that stuff happened with the destruction of Jerusalem
some of that stuff has been going on again and again since then
some of it will not happen until very close until the end

Which is why some believe the original purpose of the Apocalypse was the prophecy of God visiting Jerusalem in judgement, but its primary purpose now is the poem of the Church-- the story of her the many dangers, enemies, trials, and temptations, and her sure, and eventual triumph and consummation.

Well the Jews are back in Israel and returning from the North, South, East and West just as prophesied. Israel hasn't been a nation or nationally recognized until 1948. It was fought over and occupied, but never a nation. The Jews are thinking of going back to their forefathers and even planning on building the third temple, also prophesied. So yes, it does seem to me it's happened as described in the different prophetic books.

The difference being that God instituted the nation of Israel, and he destroyed it. Proving God's express involvement in instituting Israel in 1948 is tenuous.... comparing the present-day state to Israel when God was king (or led the kings) is not much of a comparison at all.